I think he's suggesting that Flash shouldn't be blast by default, but something like a flashbang would be marked "Flash (Blast)" or somesuch. As is, anything in FC that does Flash damage (or Bang, or Sonic) does so in a radius, even when it doesn't make sense (such as the piledriver example).

Pretty much this. Though you don't even need to mark it that way because of weapon qualities. A flashbang would do (say) 4d6 Flash & Bang. It's qualities would be Blast 10 ft. You can immediately tell that it does flash and bang damage in a blast without any additional notation (which is good). Flip it to say Pepper Spray (which I currently have doing Flash and Stress damage) and you don't have blast in the qualities because it's single target.

Glad to see it's already on your radar - I've had a fair few guys express confusion over it since SC2 (with Headbutt), but I've never thought to mention it until now (just one of my group asked me about it literally as I was typing my post).

A slightly different thing for a moment:Guns with Massive. Yay or nay?

I just put Takedown on weapons that have it in Spycraft, but while thinking about high caliber rounds that possess both Takedown and high recoil I started to wonder if Massive might be a good call? 12 Gauge shotguns have Takedown and Recoil 25 (SC) - should it just require 15 strength (and get the built into takedown via Massive)? What about high caliber sniper rifles? A .50AE?

Um, honestly, I've always hated the takedown quality. When people fall down after getting shot, it's a combination of 3 things that causes it: 1. Psychosomatic reaction to being shot, 2. Hydrostatic shock, and 3. death. A .45 caliber bullet has about 4x the kinetic energy of a fast ball thrown by a major league pitcher. That's certainly enough energy to cause considerable pain and injury, but not enough to knock a person over. So, since Takedown can't possibly be modeling the bullet knocking the target over, it must be either the psychosomatic reason, in which case a fort save is inappropriate, or hydrostatic shock, in which case any save is inappropriate because it's much more about chance than the health or fitness of the target. Personally, I'd rather falling down be an option for spending additional AD when activating crits rather than a property of some subset of guns.

I never thought it was modelling any of those things - I always thought it was for that cinematic "blasted of their feet" effect. If anything, I figured Hydrostatic Shock (with Fort representing health / fitness - just like how it ignores poison and disease and stops knockout).

I can totally get behind it's removal though. You could still put the effect into a campaign quality (or as part of a game genre option) that makes combat more cinematic and less realistic. Plus, it's one less die roll everytime someone gets shot, which is good (the one mechanics complaint about FC combat that I've seen - that there's a lot of die rolling for each single attack (attack, block, bleed, massive, secondary effect (fatigued/on fire/etc)).

... That's certainly enough energy to cause considerable pain and injury, but not enough to knock a person over. ...

Except that is exactly what rounds like the .45ACP were designed to to, and historically they have. One of the lessons of the Moro Rebellion in the Philippines was the lack of stopping power of the .38 revolvers carried by the US soldiers.

Hard armor can exacerbate it: I saw the clip of a soldier in Iraq take a Dragunov round right in his chest plate. Bam, on the ground. Next round he was on the other side of the HMMWV. Damage save made, Takedown failed, both actions to get up and move. (No, the Dragunov doesn't have Takedown.)

I'm not about to suggest that armor composition be added to the mix, but Takedown is a reasonable simulation. (Where "reasonable" is a good mix between simulation and playability.)

While it is a good episode of Mythbusters, it is largely irrelevant as a counter argument to Takedown. Takedown doesn't throw the guy back several feet, it drops him sprawled in his square, which is exactly what Buster looks like he is doing when he gets shot.

Hard armor can exacerbate it: I saw the clip of a soldier in Iraq take a Dragunov round right in his chest plate. Bam, on the ground. Next round he was on the other side of the HMMWV. Damage save made, Takedown failed, both actions to get up and move. (No, the Dragunov doesn't have Takedown.)

Add to the fact that we have a first hand account of being shot equating to being knocked down, from a guy who by all accounts has way more experience than me on the subject*, and I am not really seeing much merit so far in the argument against Takedown.

The one argument I have seen that has had merit is that it increases the amount of die rolls needed to resolve an attack but keeping Takedown seems to simulate getting shot more than removing Takedown.

*I have never had to watch anyone get shot, something for which I am really grateful.

Glad to see it's already on your radar - I've had a fair few guys express confusion over it since SC2 (with Headbutt), but I've never thought to mention it until now (just one of my group asked me about it literally as I was typing my post).

Internally, we talk a lot about something we call "decoupling." This is a great example of why it's necessary. So is the (entirely fair) argument that there's too much rolling subsequent to many attacks.

This is why I like Saga Edition's Fort/Reflex/Will Defence model as opposed to the Defence + Save mechanic of standard d20; it makes for a much quicker resolution of combat when those values are a static number the attacker has to beat rather than the defender roll

This is why I like Saga Edition's Fort/Reflex/Will Defence model as opposed to the Defence + Save mechanic of standard d20; it makes for a much quicker resolution of combat when those values are a static number the attacker has to beat rather than the defender roll

We like that set-up as well, though it does create its own set of new concerns - primarily related to multiple save effects applying to a single roll.

This is why I like Saga Edition's Fort/Reflex/Will Defence model as opposed to the Defence + Save mechanic of standard d20; it makes for a much quicker resolution of combat when those values are a static number the attacker has to beat rather than the defender roll

How often does that happen, though? The only case I can really see that is somethin with a blast radius also having takedown

More so in fantasy than modern but once you throw any form of arcana into the mix - and honestly, whenever you get into even mildly simulationist modern gear - the saves can pile on quickly.

I can't think of a good way to add the up the Reflex Save for half damage in a blast to a Fortitude Save to avoid being knocked down into one roll. Perhaps the player could roll attacks against the NPC's stats? That does leave less for the GM to roll, which has advantages and disadvantages.